Z 180-600 vs 400 4.5/1.4x TC

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

NorthernFocus

NorthernFocus

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Did a quick test to compare the 180-600@600mm vs 400 4.5/1.4xTC.
- tripod mounted on gimbal
- VR on
- distance to target adjusted to give same(theoretical) FOV
- natural light on overcast day
- identical setting and shot within a couple of minutes of each other(as fast as I could change the lens)
- 10 frames w/each lens and sharpest of each chosen to compare
- identical processing in LR, "enhance" denoise, no sharpening

Conclusions:
The 400 4.5/TC is marginally sharper with noticeably better contrast when comparing a target w/black text/lines on white label. Difference is indistinguishable on the synthetic fur on a teddy bear.

Screenshots FWIW.

Screenshot (46)_2560 x 1600.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Screenshot (47)_2560 x 1600.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the comparison! Clearly zoom lenses have come a long way. My first long lens was the Sigma 120-400mm and I was not too happy with it, especially after I had bought a prime lens. The 180-600mm clearly wins on ability to accommodate different subjects at different distances. And a much lower price. However it is "substantially" heavier, by slightly over a pound (about 30% more). And the 400mm can be shot when it gets darker at f/4.5 by removing the TC. For me, one of the critical questions is whether you feel that the 180-600mm grabs focus faster, slower or the same as the 400mm plus 1.4TC. This is much harder to test. But based on your tests, it would have been tempting to get the zoom if I hadn't already bought the 400mm lens.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
Thanks for the comparison! Clearly zoom lenses have come a long way. My first long lens was the Sigma 120-400mm and I was not too happy with it, especially after I had bought a prime lens. The 180-600mm clearly wins on ability to accommodate different subjects at different distances. And a much lower price. However it is "substantially" heavier, by slightly over a pound (about 30% more). And the 400mm can be shot when it gets darker at f/4.5 by removing the TC. For me, one of the critical questions is whether you feel that the 180-600mm grabs focus faster, slower or the same as the 400mm plus 1.4TC. This is much harder to test. But based on your tests, it would have been tempting to get the zoom if I hadn't already bought the 400mm lens.
Click to expand...
The 400 4.5 is probably my favorite lens now. I never thought anything would shelve the 500PF but I haven't used it since I started shooting with the 400 4.5.

I haven't been able to get down to the duck pond for some "trap shooting" to test AF. But honestly I'm not concerned about focus speed. Even the 200-500 was fast enough for any real world scenario and I have little doubt this one will be quicker than that. Across the board thus far the new Z lenses have out performed the f-mount counterparts and I fail to see any reason this one will be any different.

I'm not a fan of zoom lenses just because I don't like using them. I have a tendency to shoot wider than necessary. But these newer zooms do seem to have come into their own performance wise. This one rounds out my kit. I've got the 400 4.5, 180-600, and 800PF. I can't really justify anything else. Unless/until they come out with some sort of 600 5.6 or I notice someone leaves a 400 2.8TC sitting on the seat of their car and walks away. :rolleyes:
 
Member's gallery
This is a very helpful test. I am sure I speak for several of us when I say I appreciate you posting this. I had the Sony 200-600 for a long lens to supplement my Nikon F setup. I have now sold everything and gotten a Nikon Z8 (with 70-200 and 2x). The Nikon Z 180-600 is the same size and weight and aperture as the Sony FE 200-600 which I sold because it was just a bit too big and heavy for regular use. (I also never loved the Sony body). Of course the versatility of a zoom is hard to beat, but based on size and weight alone I think the 400 f4.5 would be the better option FOR ME. (I rented one and loved the feel, though missed having a zoom).

Only others can decide what is best for them, but if you have never used a lens the size of the 180-600 then I would suggest renting one and using it in the field for a prolonged period and asking yourself if you realistically would want to carry that bulk. Some will not mind and others like me will. The other variable is that when the teleconverter is removed from the 400 f4.5 you get a full stop faster aperture, which can make a huge difference in low light.
 
Member's gallery
They're definitely close. The difference that stands out the most to me is that it looks like the 400 with TC has significantly worse chromatic aberration.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
They're definitely close. The difference that stands out the most to me is that it looks like the 400 with TC has significantly worse chromatic aberration.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. In this same test(i.e. black text on white) it's as bad or worse with the bare lens. I've not noticed it manifest itself in real shooting situations. And now the DxO has profiled the lens it's not a practical issue. But interesting that CA is less on the zoom.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
This is a very helpful test. I am sure I speak for several of us when I say I appreciate you posting this. I had the Sony 200-600 for a long lens to supplement my Nikon F setup. I have now sold everything and gotten a Nikon Z8 (with 70-200 and 2x). The Nikon Z 180-600 is the same size and weight and aperture as the Sony FE 200-600 which I sold because it was just a bit too big and heavy for regular use. (I also never loved the Sony body). Of course the versatility of a zoom is hard to beat, but based on size and weight alone I think the 400 f4.5 would be the better option FOR ME. (I rented one and loved the feel, though missed having a zoom).

Only others can decide what is best for them, but if you have never used a lens the size of the 180-600 then I would suggest renting one and using it in the field for a prolonged period and asking yourself if you realistically would want to carry that bulk. Some will not mind and others like me will. The other variable is that when the teleconverter is removed from the 400 f4.5 you get a full stop faster aperture, which can make a huge difference in low light.
Click to expand...
Glad you found it useful.

I think the people that will be super happy with this lens are those coming from the 200-500mm who are used to the weight. It's lighter, faster, internal zoom, 90 degree stop to stop zoom, and has the benefits of native Z controls. That particular upgrade is a no brainer other than spending the $$.

On the other hand, I wouldn't sell my 500PF nor 400 4.5. I'd supplement those two with this one for when zoom is needed but certainly don't consider it a replacement.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for your report. There's little to add to the swelling affirmations for this latest zoom telephoto.

The options and affordability continue to improve for wildlife photographers, which also complicates decisions! Previously, one of the common questions was 100-400 S or 400 f4.5S or 500 PF? Now there's the 180-600!

This shift in quality consolidated in 2018-2019 with the exotically priced 180-400 TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR. However, the inaugural tele zoom in Nikonland was the 2016 release of the 70-200 f2.8E FL, which caught up to even the best primes.... now it's the era of these Z Nikkor telephotos: top optics and relatively affordable.

It will also be interesting to read Brad Hill's promised comparisons (posted 22 August): ..."It's highly likely my shiny new Nikkor Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR will have arrived and be waiting for me when I return. I will be testing this lens extensively against just a whack of other Nikkor (and Sigma) lenses (both zooms and primes) that overlap with it in focal length. That testing will begin as soon as I'm back and I will be posting regular short updates here on my blog about how the Z 180-600mm stacks up against "competing" glass. I am REALLY looking forward to putting Nikon's latest "super-zoom" through its paces and discovering how it really performs under real-world shooting conditions."

He's typically thorough in testing gear under field conditions in BC
 
Member's gallery
To me at least, the 400mm, even with the tc, seems to have slightly better contrast. Still, if you didn’t see them side by side, you’d be more than happy with the results from the zoom.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Thanks for your report. There's little to add to the swelling affirmations for this latest zoom telephoto.

The options and affordability continue to improve for wildlife photographers, which also complicates decisions! Previously, one of the common questions was 100-400 S or 400 f4.5S or 500 PF? Now there's the 180-600!

This shift in quality consolidated in 2018-2019 with the exotically priced 180-400 TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR. However, the inaugural tele zoom in Nikonland was the 2016 release of the 70-200 f2.8E FL, which caught up to even the best primes.... now it's the era of these Z Nikkor telephotos: top optics and relatively affordable...
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that the optics of zoom lenses has improved markedly in recent years. Low priced zooms like this one still won't displace prime lenses for ultimate IQ but no hesitation using them when the benefit of the variable FL is needed. Certainly if I'm heading to a new location etc where I'm not familiar with the situation I'll have no hesitation throwing this one in the bag as my single solution.

We were all blown away by the IQ vs cost of the 200-500 when it came out. As I said above anyone looking to upgrade that lens will be thrilled with this one.
 
Member's gallery
Steve W said:
To me at least, the 400mm, even with the tc, seems to have slightly better contrast. Still, if you didn’t see them side by side, you’d be more than happy with the results from the zoom.
Click to expand...
NorthernFocus said:
Conclusions:
The 400 4.5/TC is marginally sharper with noticeably better contrast when comparing a target w/black text/lines on white label. Difference is indistinguishable on the synthetic fur on a teddy bear.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
That would be cool. You can post the results here if you want rather than start another thread. I can change to title of the OP.
Click to expand...
I don’t own the lens… yet..
I was thinking if maybe you can do it.

I’m still interested to know if Nikon would add the S, what would they add? Better image quality, or more FN buttons, etc.
 
Member's gallery
Based on a lot of similar videos and comparisons…I’m not at all shocked by the quality of the lens itself…but I am shocked that it’s as good as it is for the price they’re charging. So far…the only thing people have really dinged is the collar/foot thing…and I’ve seen several people who claimed it was obviously a financial make it cheaper decision…but realistically how much more oils have the lens cost to produce if it used something like the 400/4.5 collar and foot…I would be surprised if that would have increased by maybe $25…and that’s a rounding error in cost vs sales price. Most people are going to put an Arca plate or placement collar/foot on it but that’s not really relevant to the choice they made…and it almost has to be something other than cost considerations to me.

Now if mine were only here…
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
...So far…the only thing people have really dinged is the collar/foot thing…and I’ve seen several people who claimed it was obviously a financial make it cheaper decision…but realistically how much more oils have the lens cost to produce if it used something like the 400/4.5 collar and foot…I would be surprised if that would have increased by maybe $25…and that’s a rounding error in cost vs sales price. Most people are going to put an Arca plate or placement collar/foot on it but that’s not really relevant to the choice they made…and it almost has to be something other than cost considerations to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's not obvious to me(mechanical/machinery engineer) that the design is any less costly to produce than one like on the 70-200, 400 4.5, etc. More likely they were trying to address all of the complaints about the design on those lenses with the removable foot. But let's face it we needed something to complain about so why not the foot/collar. It is less than ideal but it works. For handholding which most people using this lens will likely do it's a non-issue. Plus most of us just accept it as a given that the foot on any Nikon telephoto has to be replaced with a third party version.

Now if we're going to complain... what about the stupid Kensington slot on the tripod ring adjustment knob. Every time you touch the knob the plastic cover for that darn slot pops open. Wonder how many people actually use that security slot?
 
Member's gallery
In the nose of the stuffed animal the 400 is seen a little better vs the zoom... but there is not that much difference as I see... Thanks for the comparison. Greetings
 
Member's gallery
ninog said:
In the nose of the stuffed animal the 400 is seen a little better vs the zoom... but there is not that much difference as I see... Thanks for the comparison. Greetings
Click to expand...
Focus was with single point on the right eye(left in frame). The nose is about on the edge of theoretical DOF so even a slight difference in focal plane would likely show. Still in all the 400/TC is a tad sharper.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Now if we're going to complain... what about the stupid Kensington slot on the tripod ring adjustment knob. Every time you touch the knob the plastic cover for that darn slot pops open. Wonder how many people actually use that security slot?
Click to expand...
i think the Kensington slot is a good _idea_, and i even bought a lock so i could use it, however i have not to this date actually used it in anger. i do suspect people using cameras as remotes likely would use these slots.

however, i think you put your finger on a good thing to complain about. the covers. i've seen a fair number of folks who've had problems with any number of the various rubber covers on these cameras getting wonked out and then having problems getting them to fit correctly.

ie, i think the problem isn't having a Kensington slot, it's more that all these covers are fussy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top